Curse

Seamus Finn · Feb 23, 2007, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divineshadows

I feel that the inherent attribute of strength could use a re-work. Ever since dervishes were introduced into the game, it has felt to me like adrenaline costs on warrior attack skills were not balanced (i.e. slightly weak) in comparison to the extremely short recharges on dervish skills.

Well I think the difference you speak of was more affected by all the blinds going around which could retard adren gain, and was easy to fit in a lot of builds that didn't have as many wards/aegis/etc. However, the whole point of adren is that it's there to outproduce energy reserves. As the battle goes on, the more the warrior hits things/gets hit, the more free attacks he gets. The whole mechanic is made to wear down defensive energy reserves as time goes on. I still see warriors doing this so I don't see much point in trying to alter the mechanic. Derv offense is measured with the same 4 pips of energy that monk defensive spells are. They can try and situate a whole build around getting MORE energy than the opposing defense(through mysticism and smiting for example) but basically are burst characters against good monks or they spam and after the first onslaught can't pressure the same. This of course isn't even taking into account how much more versatile warriors are when not fighting in a group. Even with gank bars getting absurdly more powerful than they were, a war with a heal sig is better off than most derv builds that you would see at the stand.

Basically this whole thread is ridiculous to me because it is about "altering, tweeking improving, whatever" an aspect of a class that is one of the two cornerstones of the game and that the game is really balanced around. People complaining about strength is totally off point. And asking for a remodelling of it to me is like saying, hey, let's tweek monk mechanics a bit, that won't be a problem... until you realize that now everything else in the game must be rebalanced around monks since they are such a basic of the game mechanic(and for what purpose? so that you can think well at least strength is useful?). And this isn't even considering that warriors are probably the last class in the game that needs any kind of remodelling(assassins are still a train wreck, necros are absent from anything but lame builds and are a CORE class, and although rits are far stronger now it is in spite of their design and partly due to overbuffs in the wrong areas).

I would be more interested in discussing how the inherent attribute of a class is terrible, quite possibly the worst in the game, and yet, the class is so strong and versatile that he is THE damage class of the game despite the weakness of strength. That seems a topic with more to discuss than trying to rework a class that is already the standard with which to compare any other damage class in the game.

Effigy · Feb 23, 2007, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Strength does suck, but I agree with Seamus and others that warriors really don't need a buff. Even with a weak primary attribute and the huge amounts of melee hate floating around, warriors still rock people. Hard.

Symbol · Feb 23, 2007, 10:17 PM // 22:17

The only thing that an attribute needs to be useful is good skills linked to that line. Strength is useful as it is, the effect is really an afterthought.